Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / 401K and IRA's

401K and IRA's

38 posts
  1. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    4/24/2012 4:04 PM
    Well know I see our wonderful and honest government under the great leader, is nosing around with the idea of taxing our personal retirement savings. When they start messing with hard earned and diligently saved IRA's and 401K's, it may be time for a revolution of some type. We should put every politician that thinks this is a good idea in public stocks. Each of us who have tried to insure a safe retirement should be allowed to tar and feather the guilty parties and give them a big kick in the backside. After much public ridicule, they should be placed in prison for crimes against this great countries citizens. We will pay appropriate taxes when the time comes. I didn't put a very large sum of money into future retirement for any political clown to pass a new rule and confiscate a bigger percent of it. They better be prepared for the consequence if they think a second time about this illegal idea!



  2. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/24/2012 4:04 PM
    So what was Hedgecock's rant about today?



  3. Ronald Kirkman
    Ronald Kirkman avatar
    42 posts
    4/24/2012 4:04 PM
    Sandy,

    Don't forget our other esteemed leader - Al Gore as Vice President cast the tie breaking vote to tax Social Security.

    Capt. Kirk
    Retired Alien
    Needham Golf Club
    Needham, MA



  4. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/24/2012 4:04 PM
    Social Security Annuities began being taxed in 1984. President Reagan signed the bill into law. The bill was passed in 1983 with bipartisan support. Al Gore cast the deciding vote on a bill that raised the percentage of annuities that could be taxed from 50% to 85% in 1993. These figures are dependent on your overall income.

    Too much AM Radio out there and too little critical thinking.



  5. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    4/24/2012 5:04 PM
    Sandy,

    While I might share your sentiment, if we aren't going to raise taxes on anyone, then the tax money has to come from somewhere. I heard Mitt had a plan to not allow a deduction on mortgages of second homes.

    I would be curious as to where ole Grover comes down on this, would this be consider raising taxes?

    I honestly would like to see both sides get together throw some ideas in the middle and see what will start working. What was the tax rate back during Clinton and Newt's years? What could be written off as a deduction and what couldn't? I remember a time when a country club membership could be written off or at least some of it because business could be done on the course. Not now it isn't.

    Lets put pencil to paper and say this is our tax revenue if we make it 10% on all income under say $500,000, or 1 million, anything over that is 20%. No deductions for anything, medical, business, social security, IRA's nothing. Then look at possible cons to that, what happens to charitable deductions, what happens when a medical condition strikes a family, will business still invest in new equipment if they can't depreciate it, or bring on new workers with no tax breaks for doing so. Then take the current tax codes, bump up rates back to Clinton years, 35% being the top, see what the revenue is for that. Look at the pros and cons, then start going through each tax break and look for the benefit it provides to the recipient and how that affects revenue to the government. I heard one time that a lot of tax breaks come about because it is a warm and fuzzy, or it is to encourage investment and growing business. What works and what isn't, we need to know these things to make meaningful changes. I have heard from someone who invest others money, the best way is to not tax but incentives, curious as to what others thing about that.

    Of course I have talked about revenue for the government, as most of you would call them taxes. While that exercise is going on, we should also be looking at the budgets, with nothing off the table, if the dang military doesn't need the extra tanks, don't build them, (Of course a tank plant shuts down, and puts people out of work, that isn't good either) I did hear Egypt wants to buy some tanks, can they keep making them? Safety net issues, would it be cheaper to train people with new skills, and give them a stipend for learning? Of course that is more cost then just giving food stamps, but that is something that needs to be discussed, will private business want to help with training to produce a better work force? How do you incentive them to do it?

    It isn't rocket science but it's not that simple either, each action causes another action, and sometimes just cutting cost leads to more problems down the road. Look at our education system for one example.

    Just my opinions.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  6. Ronald Kirkman
    Ronald Kirkman avatar
    42 posts
    4/24/2012 9:04 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Social Security Annuities began being taxed in 1984. President Reagan signed the bill into law. The bill was passed in 1983 with bipartisan support. Al Gore cast the deciding vote on a bill that raised the percentage of annuities that could be taxed from 50% to 85% in 1993. These figures are dependent on your overall income.

    Too much AM Radio out there and too little critical thinking.


    Scott;

    I hope you don't mind but I am going to give you a new knick-name. From now on you will be known to me as the Professor and sir take it as a compliment.

    P.S. Is social security and social security annuities one and the same? I never heard of the latter.

    The only AM Radio I listen to in my area is 740 - all oldies from the forties and fifties.

    Capt. Kirk
    Retired Alien
    Needham golf Club
    Needham, MA



  7. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    4/25/2012 5:04 AM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Sandy,

    While I might share your sentiment, if we aren't going to raise taxes on anyone, then the tax money has to come from somewhere. I heard Mitt had a plan to not allow a deduction on mortgages of second homes.

    I would be curious as to where ole Grover comes down on this, would this be consider raising taxes?

    I honestly would like to see both sides get together throw some ideas in the middle and see what will start working. What was the tax rate back during Clinton and Newt's years? What could be written off as a deduction and what couldn't? I remember a time when a country club membership could be written off or at least some of it because business could be done on the course. Not now it isn't.

    Lets put pencil to paper and say this is our tax revenue if we make it 10% on all income under say $500,000, or 1 million, anything over that is 20%. No deductions for anything, medical, business, social security, IRA's nothing. Then look at possible cons to that, what happens to charitable deductions, what happens when a medical condition strikes a family, will business still invest in new equipment if they can't depreciate it, or bring on new workers with no tax breaks for doing so. Then take the current tax codes, bump up rates back to Clinton years, 35% being the top, see what the revenue is for that. Look at the pros and cons, then start going through each tax break and look for the benefit it provides to the recipient and how that affects revenue to the government. I heard one time that a lot of tax breaks come about because it is a warm and fuzzy, or it is to encourage investment and growing business. What works and what isn't, we need to know these things to make meaningful changes. I have heard from someone who invest others money, the best way is to not tax but incentives, curious as to what others thing about that.

    Of course I have talked about revenue for the government, as most of you would call them taxes. While that exercise is going on, we should also be looking at the budgets, with nothing off the table, if the dang military doesn't need the extra tanks, don't build them, (Of course a tank plant shuts down, and puts people out of work, that isn't good either) I did hear Egypt wants to buy some tanks, can they keep making them? Safety net issues, would it be cheaper to train people with new skills, and give them a stipend for learning? Of course that is more cost then just giving food stamps, but that is something that needs to be discussed, will private business want to help with training to produce a better work force? How do you incentive them to do it?

    It isn't rocket science but it's not that simple either, each action causes another action, and sometimes just cutting cost leads to more problems down the road. Look at our education system for one example.

    Just my opinions.

    Mel


    Mel,

    Tax money is not the problem, spending is the problem. We are throwing more money at redundant programs that just have not worked and its robbing from the things the govt is supposed to do. The education system is the same way, the teachers are getting these great benefits packages and at most schools good pay. Each year the cost of the benefits are skyrocketing, so to fit it all in within the budget they have to cut something else. This fact is not arguable, the highest increase in costs that schools face is in benefits. But when the schools try to get a handle on the increasing costs, by making the employee pay a percentage, the unions cry foul and many times strike.

    The federal government is not held to the standard of a budget, they just keep passing new programs and have no way to pay for them. Seems like a lot of new programs are for giveaways and the politicians do them to seem compassionate and get votes. But where is the compassion when you are bankrupting a system that will eventually not be able to give people anything and will just leave everyone to their own accord.

    The best system we can put together is one that encourage business, but still maintains accountability within the law. One that encourages businesses to grow in the US and not go elsewhere. One that allows people to make profit, without the fear of confiscation. This would lead to an environment where more people are employed and less dependent on govt and creates more taxpayers within the system so we don't have to raise taxes. More taxpayers means more money for the govt and less dependency means spending goes down for the govt. That's how you reduce deficits and allow your govt to work under a balanced budget. if we keep giving away the kitchen sink, we will never balance anything



  8. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    4/25/2012 6:04 AM
    Hey I got an idea. Lets start with a fricking budget first. How can congress and the POTUS even get paid or are allowed to fund programs, pay for anything without one.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/24/snl-a ... ole-audio/



  9. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/25/2012 7:04 AM
    The do not need a budget. Even with a budget they still have to go here:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/



  10. Robert Crockett
    Robert Crockett avatar
    4 posts
    4/25/2012 8:04 AM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The do not need a budget. Even with a budget they still have to go here:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/

    I thinking Mr.Wahlin...as big a mouth as U seem to have in regards to Dumb-O-Crates vs. Repub-Licans...Maybe U should quit your Job and just run for public office. You believe that the Propaganda you get is founded when in turn any propaganda on the opposing side is false. There is No True party this day and time Sir....If you think there is, then you are as stupid as your Opposition. I'm thinking that your like My Old Uncle Jon.....I Love him Dearly, but he has made an Obsession in Politics and it's ate him up. He forgets the the World IS Void and without and will die and it's inhabitants within. If you think LIFE should be FAIR for err body...your As delusional as I believe you are. That's the Machine Man.....I'm dealing with a golf course with 5 people including myself, seeding my front lawn....A worthless son-in-law thats out of the Army six months ago and doesn't wanna work. Last wk-left his wife,6yr old Grandson and 4month old lil granddaughter. Theres no Post Traumatic Stress...He's just a Flighter than a Fighter. The wife and I are takin up the slack cuz that's WHO we are. We don't sit around and CRY about it cuz it Truly wont do a damb bit of good. You are a Whiner Mr. Wahlin....X-Military Schmilitary. I Honer Vets and God Bless em...I know good ones and not so good ones.....From the Viet to Korea...WW2....the pushers in Life to the Takers....You are a Whiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



  11. Keith Lamb
    Keith Lamb avatar
    3 posts
    4/25/2012 8:04 AM
    Robert Crockett said:
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The do not need a budget. Even with a budget they still have to go here:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/

    I thinking Mr.Wahlin...as big a mouth as U seem to have in regards to Dumb-O-Crates vs. Repub-Licans...Maybe U should quit your Job and just run for public office. You believe that the Propoganda you get is founded when in turn any propoganda on the opposing side is false. There is No True party this day and time Sir....If you think there is, then you are as stupid as your Opposition. I'm thinking that your like My Old Uncle Jon.....I Love him Dearly, but he has made an Obsession in Politics and it's ate him up. He forgets the the World IS Void and without and will die and it's inhabitants within. If you think LIFE should be FAIR for err body...your As delusional as I believe you are. That's the Machine Man.....I'm dealing with a golf course with 5 people including myself, seeding my front lawn....A worthless son-in-law thats out of the Army six months ago and doesn't wanna work. Last wk-left his wife,6yr old Grandson and 4month old lil granddaughter. Theres no Post Traumatic Stress...He's just a Flighter than a Fighter. The wife and I are takin up the slack cuz that's WHO we are. We don't sit around and CRY about it cuz it Truly wont do a damb bit of good. You are a Whinner Mr. Wahlin....X-Military Schmilitary. I Honer Vets and God Bless em...I know good ones and not so good ones.....From the Viet to Korea...WW2....the pushers in Life to the Takers....You are a Whinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Man, that was painful to read......check spelling button would have only fixed a small part of the problem.



  12. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    4/25/2012 10:04 AM
    Haven't 401's and IRA's always been taxed when distributions are made? They earn money tax free while they remain invested (some contributions are even tax deductible) then are taxed as income when distributed (presumably as a retiree one would be in a lower tax bracket). Or maybe my understanding of these instruments is incorrect.



  13. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    4/25/2012 10:04 AM
    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: Haven't 401's and IRA's always been taxed when distributions are made? They earn money tax free while they remain invested (some contributions are even tax deductible) then are taxed as income when distributed (presumably as a retiree one would be in a lower tax bracket). Or maybe my understanding of these instruments is incorrect.


    Steve,
    That is correct, but Mel went on about a tax system he thought would help with revenue to the govt, that is how we got on a tax and budget rant



  14. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    4/25/2012 10:04 AM
    Gus, that is the way it has always been. Now they want to get their meat hooks into roughly 20% more of it.



  15. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/25/2012 11:04 AM
    Keith Lamb said:
    Robert Crockett said:
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The do not need a budget. Even with a budget they still have to go here:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/

    I thinking Mr.Wahlin...as big a mouth as U seem to have in regards to Dumb-O-Crates vs. Repub-Licans...Maybe U should quit your Job and just run for public office. You believe that the Propoganda you get is founded when in turn any propoganda on the opposing side is false. There is No True party this day and time Sir....If you think there is, then you are as stupid as your Opposition. I'm thinking that your like My Old Uncle Jon.....I Love him Dearly, but he has made an Obsession in Politics and it's ate him up. He forgets the the World IS Void and without and will die and it's inhabitants within. If you think LIFE should be FAIR for err body...your As delusional as I believe you are. That's the Machine Man.....I'm dealing with a golf course with 5 people including myself, seeding my front lawn....A worthless son-in-law thats out of the Army six months ago and doesn't wanna work. Last wk-left his wife,6yr old Grandson and 4month old lil granddaughter. Theres no Post Traumatic Stress...He's just a Flighter than a Fighter. The wife and I are takin up the slack cuz that's WHO we are. We don't sit around and CRY about it cuz it Truly wont do a damb bit of good. You are a Whinner Mr. Wahlin....X-Military Schmilitary. I Honer Vets and God Bless em...I know good ones and not so good ones.....From the Viet to Korea...WW2....the pushers in Life to the Takers....You are a Whinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Man, that was painful to read......check spelling button would have only fixed a small part of the problem.


    I got about two lines into it. Interesting response to my post though - a statement of fact. I am guessing there is a chip on his shoulder for some reason.



  16. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    4/25/2012 1:04 PM
    Robert Crockett said:
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: The do not need a budget. Even with a budget they still have to go here:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/

    I thinking Mr.Wahlin...as big a mouth as U seem to have in regards to Dumb-O-Crates vs. Repub-Licans...Maybe U should quit your Job and just run for public office. You believe that the Propaganda you get is founded when in turn any propaganda on the opposing side is false. There is No True party this day and time Sir....If you think there is, then you are as stupid as your Opposition. I'm thinking that your like My Old Uncle Jon.....I Love him Dearly, but he has made an Obsession in Politics and it's ate him up. He forgets the the World IS Void and without and will die and it's inhabitants within. If you think LIFE should be FAIR for err body...your As delusional as I believe you are. That's the Machine Man.....I'm dealing with a golf course with 5 people including myself, seeding my front lawn....A worthless son-in-law thats out of the Army six months ago and doesn't wanna work. Last wk-left his wife,6yr old Grandson and 4month old lil granddaughter. Theres no Post Traumatic Stress...He's just a Flighter than a Fighter. The wife and I are takin up the slack cuz that's WHO we are. We don't sit around and CRY about it cuz it Truly wont do a damb bit of good. You are a Whiner Mr. Wahlin....X-Military Schmilitary. I Honer Vets and God Bless em...I know good ones and not so good ones.....From the Viet to Korea...WW2....the pushers in Life to the Takers....You are a Whiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Robert, when you come down of of that stuff, could you rewrite it in English



  17. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    4/25/2012 3:04 PM
    Dennis,

    I can agree spending can be an issue, and I said as much in my other post, and I will admit that some of what democrats want to save needs to be looked as just as some programs that republicans want. I do think I mentioned that in my post, revenue and expenses. No different then any business, I agree with your statement that businesses need to be able to earn a profit, assets if someone wants to sell and someone wants to buy is fine, I agree with your accountability statement, but it seems most republicans call those regulations that are killing business, well in my opinion, those regulations that would have held businesses to be accountable were removed during the Bush years (as I understand it). I do disagree with you that tax money isn't the problem, it is part of the problem as in their isn't enough revenue to maintain basic services or there is enough revenue for that but because we have to spend so much on other things, we don't have the money for that. If we maintained basic services people would be out working repairing and maintaining those services, and those doing the work aren't all government employees, when is the last time you saw a state, city or the federal highway administration doing more then simple maintenance? All that work is contracted out.

    Quite honestly Dennis, I bet if we sat down, put the kool-aide away and looked at the issues of budgets and revenues, we might not be so far apart then you think, I think we both want to see at least close to a balanced budget, (debt isn't bad, even profitable businesses will carry a little debt when the grow or make improvements, massive debt is another story). We might choose some different ways to get there, but I think if we look at everything with a cost benefit analysis, (I know certain things like parks can't always prove to bring in the money through the turnstiles to support themselves) but other items should, just having a balanced approach to things can achieve the goal.

    But that is my opinion.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  18. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    4/25/2012 4:04 PM
    Everyone has to keep in mind that the GSA scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. We have agencies that overlap to a huge level but all are fully funded. I would bet my last dollar that you could go through every agency rather city, state or federal and find beyond gross waste in every one of them. Next, go look at the corruption that goes on with these non-audited agencies. when the government finally gets serious and cleans up those two problems from local to the feds, then I might be willing to listen about the need for a tax increase. I have heard too many first hand stories of mismanagement to believe we need more tax revenue. Lower taxes have always resulted in higher government revenues. It is historical. Clean up the mess and manage properly and if we still have shortfalls then talk to me about taxes. Justify every position in government. If it doesn't save or make money, drop it. We have so many ways to clean up this mess it is almost laughable but unfortunately, it is easier to take more of other peoples money than do the jobs they were hired to do.



  19. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/25/2012 5:04 PM
    Which government agencies do not get audited?



  20. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    4/26/2012 4:04 AM
    Larry Allan said:

    Robert, when you come down of of that stuff, could you rewrite it in English


    So, he'll understand...

    [quote">Ezekiel Allan wrote:

    Billy Bob, when yo' come down of of thet stuff, c'd yo' rewrite it in English


    http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/



  21. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    4/26/2012 6:04 AM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Dennis,

    I can agree spending can be an issue, and I said as much in my other post, and I will admit that some of what democrats want to save needs to be looked as just as some programs that republicans want. I do think I mentioned that in my post, revenue and expenses. No different then any business, I agree with your statement that businesses need to be able to earn a profit, assets if someone wants to sell and someone wants to buy is fine, I agree with your accountability statement, but it seems most republicans call those regulations that are killing business, well in my opinion, those regulations that would have held businesses to be accountable were removed during the Bush years (as I understand it). I do disagree with you that tax money isn't the problem, it is part of the problem as in their isn't enough revenue to maintain basic services or there is enough revenue for that but because we have to spend so much on other things, we don't have the money for that. If we maintained basic services people would be out working repairing and maintaining those services, and those doing the work aren't all government employees, when is the last time you saw a state, city or the federal highway administration doing more then simple maintenance? All that work is contracted out.

    Quite honestly Dennis, I bet if we sat down, put the kool-aide away and looked at the issues of budgets and revenues, we might not be so far apart then you think, I think we both want to see at least close to a balanced budget, (debt isn't bad, even profitable businesses will carry a little debt when the grow or make improvements, massive debt is another story). We might choose some different ways to get there, but I think if we look at everything with a cost benefit analysis, (I know certain things like parks can't always prove to bring in the money through the turnstiles to support themselves) but other items should, just having a balanced approach to things can achieve the goal.

    But that is my opinion.

    Mel


    Mel, your a little off base about Bush deregulating the financial industry. First off the Glass-Steagall act was repealed under Clinton and allowed commercial banks to coexist with investment type of banks. This led to many more banks to become vulnernable to an economic downturn, which happened with the housing bubble. These investment banks that were selling mortgage securities affected banks as a whole because there were a lot of investment and commercial banks that joined forces after the Glass-Steagall act was repealed. This made any meltdown a little more serious. The only financial regulation that was signed under Bush was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and this made business more accountable for their accounting practices. This counteracted what happened at Enron.

    There is enough money to maintain basic services. Those should be the priority of govt. Those are things they have always done. its just been since the 1930's that we have built all these social safety nets into our policies and they are sucking the life out of our economy. In 1962, only 28.3% of our federal budget was spent on safety nets. In 2010 that number is 70.5%. The mandatory entitlement portion of that is 56%. How can you afford to do any basic services when all your cash is going to these programs? We need to reduce entitlement spending and ween people off and make them accountable for themselves, unless they are disabled and can't. That way the govt can use the money it takes in for things like infrastructure, military, law enforcement, etc. The govt takes in close to three trillion dollars a year and we have been defecit spending since 1969. Its unsustainable and its irresponsible. But its supposedly compassionate to help others and make them dependent on you. There is more compassion in teaching someone to be dependent on themselves than letting them be a leach on society. And that may sound cold, but what happens when you run out of other people money?



  22. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    4/26/2012 7:04 AM
    401k's and IRA's are not taxed until distribution is taken, normal interest and penalties occur for early withdrawal (wow that's a dangerous line I just wrote) . They are pre tax dollars invested in retirment. Roth IRA's though are taxed up front and you withdraw with no tax consequence on the backend. Not knowing WHAT the tax rate could be 20-30 years from now Roth's are a great idea for younger folks for sure. But like Sandy said you never know what our best and brightest might do down the road.



  23. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    4/26/2012 9:04 AM
    After the Hawaii and Las Vegas fiasco's, I am guessing that audits are performed by the same departments that are doing the waste! I know the audits are supposed to happen but if they are performed by a government agency that has the same mentality, how many accurate audits do we really get? If we had real audits, we wouldn't have the several hundred dollar toilet seats or the trips to Hawaii for a week by numerous people to cut one ribbon that takes one minute to perform. These things happen far too often to believe government has any real accountability. Las Vegas wasn't a fluke.



  24. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    4/26/2012 9:04 AM
    They have to tax our retirement savings, so that they can fund the retirements of all of the government employees who don't have them and never saved anything for retirement, because they are entitled to a pension. Also so they can fund the pensions of private industry which are underfunded, however guaranteed by the government.



  25. Dennis Cook
    Dennis Cook avatar
    1 posts
    4/26/2012 10:04 AM
    James Schmid said: They have to tax our retirement savings, so that they can fund the retirements of all of the government employees who don't have them and never saved anything for retirement, because they are entitled to a pension. Also so they can fund the pensions of private industry which are underfunded, however guaranteed by the government.


    Oh you mean the private union pensions? The ones that the companies cant pay for because the unions have run amuck



  26. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    4/26/2012 11:04 AM
    I still say no matter what they want it for, hands off my planned retirement money. Social Security clearly states that it is a supplement and not meant to be a full retirement. Good planners that save accordingly to not be a drain on an already going broke system need to be punished for their greed because they didn't depend on the system on SS, of course that makes perfect sense! I would burn my money and jump off a high bridge before I will give it to be fair to others! I earned and saved it, they didn't, this isn't negotiable!



  27. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    4/26/2012 12:04 PM
    Dennis Cook said:
    James Schmid said: They have to tax our retirement savings, so that they can fund the retirements of all of the government employees who don't have them and never saved anything for retirement, because they are entitled to a pension. Also so they can fund the pensions of private industry which are underfunded, however guaranteed by the government.


    Oh you mean the private union pensions? The ones that the companies cant pay for because the unions have run amuck


    Those exact ones. And other ones too



  28. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/26/2012 12:04 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: I still say no matter what they want it for, hands off my planned retirement money. Social Security clearly states that it is a supplement and not meant to be a full retirement. Good planners that save accordingly to not be a drain on an already going broke system need to be punished for their greed because they didn't depend on the system on SS, of course that makes perfect sense! I would burn my money and jump off a high bridge before I will give it to be fair to others! I earned and saved it, they didn't, this isn't negotiable!


    I have not read anywhere that congress is discussing taxing existing retirement savings. This is what I have understood:

    1. They are discussing limiting the amount that can be put into a 401k from $50,000 to 20% of your income with a maximum of $20,000.

    2. They are discussing removing the tax deduction for money put into retirement accounts and making an 18% contribution directly into your retirement account instead.



  29. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    4/26/2012 12:04 PM
    Sandy you have not heard the last of the secret service fiasco as well. Since they have thrown 6 or 7 under the bus don't be surprised to hear some new revelations come to the surface about previous junkets to far off places, whomever the prez was. I doubt this was the first time such an occurrence happened.

    Scott why would they limit what you can put into a retirement account. Eventually your Uncle will get his share plus some I am sure. Do you think Buffet, Gates, go down the list of techies that have gotten rich at 25 need to put money away in a retirement account. Invest $5 mil in tax free bonds and that should cover your future needs.
    And not sure what you are referring to with the 18% deal. Why would they remove the deduction and why would they give us 18% of the treasury's money.........enlighten the masses......some of us are very
    sloooooooooooow but close to retirement age.



  30. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    4/26/2012 1:04 PM
    David McCallum said: Scott why would they limit what you can put into a retirement account. Eventually your Uncle will get his share plus some I am sure. Do you think Buffet, Gates, go down the list of techies that have gotten rich at 25 need to put money away in a retirement account. Invest $5 mil in tax free bonds and that should cover your future needs.
    And not sure what you are referring to with the 18% deal. Why would they remove the deduction and why would they give us 18% of the treasury's money.........enlighten the masses......some of us are very
    sloooooooooooow but close to retirement age.


    I did not say that I agreed with it. I was just saying that I had not read anything about taxing existing accounts any differently/more than anticipated. Having said that I will try to explain what I think they are trying to do, besides raise revenue of course.

    Someone who can put away $50,000 per year is making pretty good money. If the congress maxed that out at $20,000 per year that person is (presumably) going to pay more taxes thus increasing revenue.

    Chances are you are paying a percentage of your income at a rate significantly higher than 18%. If they do not allow you to reduce your taxable income for retirement contributions and they offset that by putting 18% into your retirement account they are effectively increasing the amount of taxes you pay and putting the offset in an account they will gouge you to get at prematurely.

    Of course government employees have this covered. We can invest in a 457 account, which is almost like a 401k except we can get the money out early without the gouge for a variety of reasons.



View or change your forums profile here.